[Webinar] A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws: Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

On Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 1 pm EDT, join Kara M. Maciel and Andrew J. Sommer of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar:  “A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws:  Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

Businesses continue to be plagued by litigation under the Americans with Disabilities, Title III (ADA) over alleged access barriers.  Lawsuits against hotels and retailers, among other public accommodations, appear to be on the rise with a disproportionate share in California.

Disability Webinar

This webinar will provide an overview of ADA, Title III standards as they apply to construction existing before the enactment of the ADA in 1992 as well as to subsequent new construction and alterations.  The webinar will also address Continue reading

California Court Negates FLSA’s “de minimis” Rule

As most of our blog readers are aware, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to keep records on wages, hours and other items, as specified in Department of Labor regulations.  Most of the information is of the kind generally maintained by employers in ordinary business practice and in compliance with other laws and regulations.

Clock

In recording working time under the FLSA, infrequent and insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, typically need not be compensated. Until now, the courts have held that such periods of time are “de minimis” and thus need not be compensated. The FLSA’s de minimis rule applies only where there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved, a few seconds or minutes in duration, and where the failure to count such time is justified by industrial realities.

Continue reading

Bucking the Gig Economy, the California Supreme Court Places Steep Hurdle on Classifying Workers as Independent Contractors

california-flagHistorically, California has applied a multi-factor test for evaluating whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.  These factors – all of which must be considered with no single controlling factor – were developed almost 30 years ago by the California Supreme Court in S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations (Borello).  Under this test, consideration was given to the business’ right of control over the manner and means of completing the work, the method of payment, duration of the relationship, and the kind of work being performed, among other factors.  Although Borello examined these factors in the context of workers’ compensation laws, its multi-factor test has been applied to other types of legal claims.

In the new economy, businesses have considered arrangements outside of an employment relationship such as hiring freelancers or contract workers.  Based on an individualized analysis with no bright line rule, Borello’s multi-factor test has afforded businesses flexibility in structuring positions to support an independent contractor  relationship.  Yet, the consequences of misclassification are severe, exposing businesses to liability for minimum and overtime wages, denied rest and meal breaks, unreimbursed work-related expenses and tax liability.  While Uber and other gig economy companies have become embroiled in high-profile litigation over independent contractor issues, businesses across the spectrum are affected as well.

Dynamex Imposes Inflexible Standard

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Dynamex), the California Supreme Court has just upended Borello, by recognizing a different standard for determining whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractor for purposes of California’s wage orders.  These wage orders impose obligations relating to minimum and overtime wages, reporting time pay, uniforms and meal and rest periods.

In Dynamex, delivery drivers filed a class action against defendant claiming that Dynamex had misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees, in violation of the applicable wage order.  Based on the definition of “employ” contained in the wage orders, the Court recognized that a worker is considered an employee of an entity that has “suffered or permitted” the worker to work in its business. The suffer or permit to work definition is broader and more inclusive than the traditional test adopted by Borello.

The Supreme Court interpreted the suffer and permit to work standard as placing the burden on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be covered by the wage order.  The Court concluded that, in order to meet this burden, the hiring entity must establish each of these three factors:

(1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in performing the work;
(2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed.

The first factor is similar to the control factor recognized as a primary consideration under Borello’s common law test.  While businesses may structure the work arrangement in a manner to demonstrate an absence of control, the same is the not true under the second factor.  Even if the worker has a specialized skill, works from home and does not perform work under the direction or control of the hiring entity (factors considered under Borello), the mere fact that the worker’s services are part of the entity’s usual course of business defeats independent contractor status.  The Court cited as an example a bakery that hires cake decorators to work on a regular basis on its custom-designed cakes, which it found to be part of the hiring entity’s usual business operation.  On the other extreme, the Court found that a plumber hired by a retail store to repair a bathroom leak would not be considered to perform services that are part of the store’s usual course of business.  There are numerous consulting arrangements that are now vulnerable under this factor.

Similarly, the third factor places another significant hurdle to establishing independent contractor status because it requires the worker to independently decide to engage in this business relationship, as opposed to being designated as an independent contractor by the hiring entity.  The Court found that an individual meeting this requirement “generally takes the usual steps to establish and promote his or her independent business – for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential business, and the like.”  Accordingly, this factor suggests that the worker would need to establish some sort of independent business entity or identity.

The Supreme Court has recognized that its ruling marks a major departure from past cases and defies guidance by the California Labor Commissioner following the Borello multi-factor test.  In adopting this broad standard for the employment relationship, the Court considered the economic consequences of classifying workers as independent contractors, with businesses avoiding payroll taxes and workers’ compensation obligations, and workers assuming financial burdens.

Takeaways for Business Owners

While this newly recognized standard provides greater clarity than the Borello multi-factor balancing test, it imposes a very high burden for employers seeking to classify workers as independent contractors.  It should be noted that the Borello test for now will continue to apply in contexts outside of California’s wage orders and should be evaluated as well.  Yet, Dynamex may effectively end up being the benchmark because it imposes a higher, more rigid standard applying to wage and hour violations that typically are the greatest source of exposure for businesses misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

Business owners and management should immediately, through the advice of employment counsel, review all current independent contractor arrangements to ensure proper classification under this new standard.  Before classifying a worker as a “consultant,” i.e., independent contractor, businesses will need to consider primarily whether the worker has an independent business and whether the nature of worker’s services is similar to the business’.  Decisions to treat a worker as a consultant motivated by financial reasons alone or because the individual works from home will now be suspect. Under appropriate circumstances, however, the California courts will likely continue to recognize independent contractor status for traditionally recognized independent contractors such as attorneys, accountants and construction trades who perform services independent of the hiring entity’s business.

 

Seeking to Pave the Way in the #MeToo Era, the California Legislature Veers off Course

By Andrew J. Sommer

shutterstock_me tooThe #MeToo movement, formed in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations against high profile public figures, has dramatically changed the discourse over harassment. Various politicians, celebrities and business leaders have been implicated in varying degrees, from engaging in sexual misconduct to tolerating a workplace with a pervasive culture of harassment and bias.  With this social movement gaining traction, the California legislature has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to change the perceived culture of workplace harassment but also revamp a host of existing general employment laws to add tools to the arsenal for employees and their attorneys.  As an example, the legislature has introduced the following bills since January 2018

SB 820 – Non-Disclosure Clauses in Settlement Agreements

In the #MeToo movement, the use of non-disclosure agreements to keep harassment allegations from coming to light has drawn significant public criticism. The California legislature has recently stepped into the fray, by introducing Senate Bill (SB) 820 to generally ban non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements resolving claims of sexual assault or harassment, sex discrimination, or harassment and retaliation for reporting such claims. Specifically, the bill prohibits settlement agreements from containing any provision preventing the “disclosure of factual information” related to these types of lawsuits, except where the provision was included at the request of the claimant. Continue reading

2018 Legislative Update for California Employers

By: Andrew J. Sommer and Daniel C. Deacon

california-flagCalifornia has had yet another banner year closing the 2017 legislative session with a spate of new employment laws imposing additional compliance obligations on employers.  Bucking the anti-regulatory tide in Washington, DC, California has passed dozens of new laws impacting both private and public sector employers.  Overall, Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed just over 12% of the bills passed by the California legislature this year.

Conn Maciel Carey LLP provides this summary of key new employment bills, regulations and local ordinances impacting California private sector employers.  Unless otherwise indicated, these new employment laws take effect January 1, 2018.

 Statewide “Ban the Box” Law

Continuing a national trend at the state and municipal level, California has passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1008, a statewide “ban the box” law limiting any inquiry into an applicant’s criminal history.  AB 1008 applies to employers with five or more employees, and is markedly different from San Francisco’s “ban the box” ordinance.

The statewide law makes it unlawful for an employer to inquire into or consider an applicant’s criminal history, including seeking such information on any job application, before the employer has made a conditional offer of employment.  In addition, an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position solely, or in part, because of the applicant’s conviction history ascertained after the conditional job offer has been extended must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a “direct and adverse relationship” with the specific duties of the applied for position.  In making this assessment, the employer must consider:  (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; (2) the time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and (3) the nature of the job held or sought.

Continue reading

California Opportunity to Work Act Spells Trouble for Employers

Clock
California Assembly Bill (AB) 5, the Opportunity to Work Act, was recently approved by the California Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment in April 2017.  The Appropriations Committee postponed a hearing on the bill that was scheduled for May 3, 2017.  Given the strong industry opposition to this bill and its harmful impact on employers, it is likely that the Appropriations Committee is taking a closer look at the bill and the negative Continue reading

Businesses Should Prepare For Predictive Scheduling Laws

Last month, Victoria’s Secret agreed to pay $12 million to settle a class action lawsuit in California brought by hourly employees that were denied pay as a result of the store’s use of on-call shift scheduling.  In that lawsuit, the employees relied on a California law requiring employees, who report for work on a scheduled workday but who either are not needed (and therefore not put to work) or are furnished with less than half their usual or scheduled hours, to receive two to four hours of pay at their regular rate of pay. Work Schedule Calendar

This settlement brings to light the “predictive scheduling” trend that is occurring throughout the nation.  Historically, restaurants and retailers have used on-call scheduling to help control labor costs.  But as workers began claiming that the daily unpredictability of on-call scheduling hindered their ability to earn a living, hold more than one job, arrange reliable child care, and attend classes, this practice began to change.

Now, to combat worker uncertainty, numerous states and municipalities have begun passing these types of laws, referred to as “predictive scheduling,” “fair scheduling,” “secure scheduling,” and “fair workweek.”  For the most part, predictive scheduling laws typically require employers to provide employees (i) with their schedules two to four weeks in advance; and (ii) with predictable pay if changes to work schedules are made within this window.    Most of these laws contain exceptions to these requirements where an employer’s inability or failure to provide an employee with scheduled work results from specific causes beyond its control.

Continue reading